Talk:Drudge Report/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Drudge Report. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
"conservative website"
Ratel repeatedly changes this article to state that the Drudge Report is a "conservative" website. As proof, he points to the Matt Drudge page where Drudge calls himself conservative. BUT!!! On that same page, Drudge says "I’m more of a populist". Since Ratel claims that The Drudge Report should have the same political slant as its author, Ratel's own logic would necessitate that the Drudge Report be labeled as a populist website. Either-way, its imprudent to attach authors political leanings to their websites. Otherwise, the political leanings of the editors of publications like Newsweek would be attached to descriptions of their publications. It would also imply that people are incapable of being objective in their reporting - a hefty accusation.User:Fizbit
- Firstly, you attach new comments to the bottom of this page, not the top. Secondly, the word "conservative" has been on the Drudge Report page for some time, and then someone removed it without giving a reason, and I replaced it. I'm not trying to force an opinion here. Thirdly, anyone who has followed Drudge knows that his talk show, book and website are all conservative in opinion and content (bogus studies notwithstanding). Anyone who tries to claim Drudge is a mere populist must explain why he stands in on talk shows for hosts like Limbaugh (he guest hosted for the conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh). And comparing a huge news organistion like Newsweek to a one-man website is absurd. ► RATEL ◄ 02:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- agree with everything that User:Fizbit said. number 1 - if you are not trying to "force an opinion", stop editing the page. number 2 - i follow Drudge's website and i dont know that it is 'conservative', it certainly doesnt seem that way to me and just because "anyone who has followed Drudge knows" this, doesnt mean it is ok to add without a source. your comment about hosting for Rush is absurd and has no relevance to this discussion, he may have just felt like hosting the show for all we know and that doesnt really matter in a discussion about his website. number 3 - you added your POV in an earlier edit and seemed to have overlooked this study where it claims the Drudge Report leans left. you can add whatever you like about this website, as long as what you add is well sourced and referenced and is about the site itself and not the person running it. any such comments like that would be placed on the person's page (and again should be well sourced and referenced). hope that clears things up for you a little. Perry mason (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ratel wrote, ".. comparing a huge news organistion like Newsweek to a one-man website is absurd." Hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, Ratel, but it's not. Neither Newsweek editors nor Drudge write articles. They select what articles are placed on their "pages". And the Drudge Report isn't a one man operation, either. He has people scouring the web for him, then he selects which links get placed on his site... sort of like reporters and Newsweek editors, eh? Better luck next time. User:Fizbit —Preceding comment was added at 07:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have in the past been many times thwarted in my editing of this Drudge Report page. I have referenced articles that clearly establish the conservative slanted nature of the Drudge Report, but always they are removed. I think those who have a problem with the Drudge Report being shown for its colors have an agenda, perhaps something along the lines of fooling readers into believing that conservative viewpoints are to be taken as mainstream viewpoints. Jason Parise (talk)
- "I have referenced articles".
- thats good to know. why were they never added into the article when you edited it then? please add them here so we can discuss if they are suitable and how they can be encorporated into the article. to me, this whole thing is not about a political issue, it about making sure the content is verifiable and mantains a NPOV which you and other editors have failed to follow. personally i dont care if you claim Drudge Report is a racist hate site as long as you give decent sources that back up the claim. User:Ratel and myself had a discussion over this a while back and they added a source about the Drudge Report being a "conservative bullhorn" (see diff). it had a source which was fine and this piece is still in the article. i didnt remove it so nobody can claim im trying to make Drudge Report appear in a certain political way or other such nonsense. Perry mason (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think the word "conservative" is probably unnecessary. Anyone reading the site will soon understand the man's bias (which he has toned down in the last year, I've noticed, perhaps as a nod to Bush's sinking popularity). In addition, we have the word conservative in numerous places on the Drudge and Drudge Report pages. We have to acknowledge that Drudge himself claims to be a "libertarian" with conservative leanings. I suppose I'd support the phrase "conservative libertarian website" because that's what Drudge 'fesses up to. ► RATEL ◄ 12:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree with RATEL on his compromise idea, and I think his solution is the best way to break our impasse. Jason Parise (talk)
- Or in fact we could use the man's words, a 'conservative leaning populist website.' How does that sound Perry? Jason Parise (talk)
- that (or anything else) would be fine providing i can see some sources added here that are verifiable and suitable for inclusion. post a decent source where Matt Drudge calls the Drudge Report a 'conservative leaning populist website' and i dont see why we cannot add that. Perry mason (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- So if we reference many of the articles already contained in the Drudge Report wiki article, and in the Matt Drudge wiki article, all of which highlight the fact that many prominent conservatives have extolled the virtues of the Drudge Report as giving them the speedy inside scoop they want, or indeed point out the biggest headlines ever reported by the Drudge Report, would it then be possible to claim in the first paragraph that the report is conservative-leaning? I can't imagine what more reference one needs, and this is what I mean when I say all the reporting one could ask for is already in the main articules associated with Drudge. Jason Parise (talk)
- im afraid i dont really get your point here. if it is already in the article and referenced (which it is under Charges of bias) and you are not giving us any new media studies or other things to discuss, there is no need to repeat the information that is already there. if you showed us something new to discuss that you thought proved the Drudge Report shows some sort of possible bias and we needed to add a new section about it, that would be fine and we could discuss that easily but at the minute we are just going round in circles. as it is, the article is fine and i dont see any problem with it and you seem to want to add new content without proving any references or now you just seem to want to repeat content that is already there. i dont mean to be rude but i just really dont see the point in all this. Perry mason (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not commenting on either opinion here, but the WP:LEAD is meant to summarise the article; it is meant to duplicate the article. You should be able to read the lead and be able to understand the whole article. Woody (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- As Woody points out, the first paragraph is designed to highlight the whole, and a part of the whole is mentioning of the controversies at the very least. I mean really Perry, do you ever read the Drudge Report on a regular basis? Can you honestly sit there and tell me that the constant Hillary bashing, global warming denialism, conservative ads and countless other articles doesn’t strike you as at least a little conservative? I applaud your desire to back up every last statement with a handy article that somehow is equal to scholarly verification, but there is something to be said for a does of old fashion common sense too. 67.113.98.3 (talk)
- ok even if we do mention any controversies in the lead, it still cannot be written how it was (calling DR a conservative website). it would have to go something like 'some critics [insert suitable references here] claim that the DR has a certain bias' etc. again, i dont really care about what side people claim the DR supports, i just wanted to see decent sources to back the claims up. however, ill play the Devil's advocate. on the hillary bashing - i could add something like [1] about Hillary's team and Drudge getting friendly. also something like [2] with quotes like "To Obama, meanwhile, Drudge has been admiring at times" and it comments on how Drudge has been critical towards McCain. also Drudge has been very critical of Bush's privacy (or lack of) policy and quite often makes Bush out to look like a fool. on the ad's - the DR uses an outside company (intermarkets) which it has no control over so thats a non-issue. Perry mason (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Hillary team reached out to Drudge in the first place because of the relentlessness of his attacks! I am willing to include a 'conservative-leaning' because as you say, there are times indeed when the DR makes an effort to a bit balanced, or at least seem like it. Those moments of balance tend to be fleeting however. As for the advertising of course they have control over what is seen in the ads. If they wanted to be balanced they could easily demand non-political ads and make as much money. Anyway, advertisers target their audience, and if conservative efforts always seem to have a reason to pay out money to advertise on DR then there is a reason for that. Lets take at the DR right at this moment, 5PM Pacific time 8/26/08. Headlines include attempts to overplay the 'rifts' in the Democratic party "Bill Clinton undercuts Obama -- again..." "Tensions boil..." "Three Clans Mix Uneasily..." Then there is the usual host of articles of conservative interest or amusement "TV: A Look Back at Hillary's Year in Pantsuits..." "PUBLISHER'S ANTI-OBAMA STAND RILES GAYS..." All that is just for today, but since the DR is a constantly evolving page it is hard sometimes to take a snapshot and say here is conclusive evidence of its conservative nature. In the morning you'll get a majority of conservative interest articles, only to have them replaced perhaps by that evening by a healthy peppering of the latest Paris Hilton foibles and an article on a 200 pound dog. Populist and conservative leaning, that's the track record. 67.113.98.3 (talk)
- you are sidetracking a little but it doesnt matter if DR has control of the ad's, it still doesnt make it a conservative website per se. if we make an example of this point of yours, if i went to NYT and found an advert saying Bush is the greatest, should we should call the NYT conservative? how about if i went onto newsmax and found a pro-Obama ad, are they a democrat website? anyway forget that. you claim "Headlines include attempts to overplay the 'rifts' in the Democratic party". of course they do because number 1 - at present time its the DNC convention and number 2 - thats what the news agencies and tv media are covering so DR looks similar because he posts links to these groups. you can bet he will do exactly the same when the RNC has their meetup as well. at present time, im looking at a headline 'Hillary tells voters: Democats must unite...' from reuters [3] that is hardly an attempt "to overplay the 'rifts'" is it? the 'ANTI-OBAMA STAND RILES GAYS' headline comes from the NYP [4] and the 'A Look Back at Hillary's Year in Pantsuits' comes from ABC [5] neither of which are controlled by DR. all he is doing is linking to these sources and the DR is bascially a snapshot of the lastest news headlines and main issues of the day. you can hardly say the DR has "conservative interest articles". at the minute he has loads on the DNC convention which i imagine intrests Democrats as well. i like how you overlooked my source that claims DR is friendly toward Obama and critical towards McCain. im the only one here providing sources at the minute so i could edit the article, add that and claim DR is a Democrat website or at least supportive of Obama because i have a source to back that up. you have yet to back your claims up with any proof or evidence im afraid. Perry mason (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok so it seems to me what you want is a link war where we both offer conflicting articles, the end result which you know will cast doubt on the whole affair. Guess what: you can dig up conflicting articles about absolutly anything under the sun if you look hard enough. At the end of the day its up to us to be able to see through the BS for what a thing really is. I bet if you took a roll call of Fox News reports and articles, you would get a 'balanced' number, but no one would suggest the place is anything but a conservative loud speaker. Drudge does a good job floating on the edge, to make it seem like his page is neutral, but then when you least expect it you're hit with a number of rather over-the-top conservative bent articles, be they anti-Hillary or anti-climate change. It is not so much the total tally, it is the timing and tenor. The balancing act is very impressive, but it is a duplicity all the same. (I'm curious to know what you think of www.drudge.com) Either that or its just the way Drudge likes his DR, but it does not change the fact that anyone reading this page over the last 2 years will come up with the same conclusion: it's written by someone who has some obvious conservative undertones. To attend to the articles you expect, here are a host that should attend to most of what I've been saying: conservatives identifying with DR: [6] [7] interesting comments on the apperance of centralism despite well known bias: [8] Drudge leaps to McCain's defense: [9] highlights DR tactics in posting very conservative topics and then removing them before long (reminds of subliminal messages) [10] and the best of all: [11]. Need I continue? There are tons of articles that back what I say up in every way possible. 67.113.98.3 (talk)
- you are taking my comments totally out of context. i dont want a "link war". i just wanted to see some evidence to back up various claims that you were making so we could discuss if they were worth adding to the article. this so called "link war" would have to follow the Undue weight rule anyway. FNC bias issues has no part in this discussion so dont try to compare it with DR. "you're hit with a number of rather over-the-top conservative bent articles" again, you are not giving us any proof of this. drudge.com looks to be a parody site and is not relevant to this discussion. i would seriously like more people to comment on this discussion because this is just going backwards and forwards but i think the links you gave as some sort of proof of a bias are crap. [12] number 1 its a blog so is not acceptable under wiki guidelines. number 2 its one tiny off the cuff remark and does not prove in anyway that DR has a bias. i could make a site called intellectualliberal.com and say DR is awesome so does it then change the DR's so called bias? [13] again a little of the cuff comment that doesnt prove the DR has a bias. [14] is already in the article under 'Charges of bias' [15] is hardly "leap[ing] to McCain's defense". its just a posted news article. you could possibly at a long shot claim DR is criticizing the NYT. [16] again this is a blog and just has captured a shot of the DR. i have no idea where these "subliminal messages" are. [17] and if that is "the best of all", its a pretty poor attempt at proving any sort of bias. it just comparing 2 things against each other. you shouldnt bothering continuing because you are not doing a very good job here. Perry mason (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you're the only one apparently of all the people who have posted here that I can see that carries this opinion that the Drudge Report is not conservative-slanted. We have a plurality here in opinion and your the odd one out, so I suggest a moderator take that into consideration and make a ruling. All that is needed to prove that the Drudge Report does have a conservative bias, albeit moderate and not heavy, is located in the article already. Additional proof isn't even needed. 'conservative-biased' or 'conservative slanted' should be a part of the first paragraph of this wiki article. 67.113.98.3 (talk)
- you are taking my comments totally out of context. i dont want a "link war". i just wanted to see some evidence to back up various claims that you were making so we could discuss if they were worth adding to the article. this so called "link war" would have to follow the Undue weight rule anyway. FNC bias issues has no part in this discussion so dont try to compare it with DR. "you're hit with a number of rather over-the-top conservative bent articles" again, you are not giving us any proof of this. drudge.com looks to be a parody site and is not relevant to this discussion. i would seriously like more people to comment on this discussion because this is just going backwards and forwards but i think the links you gave as some sort of proof of a bias are crap. [12] number 1 its a blog so is not acceptable under wiki guidelines. number 2 its one tiny off the cuff remark and does not prove in anyway that DR has a bias. i could make a site called intellectualliberal.com and say DR is awesome so does it then change the DR's so called bias? [13] again a little of the cuff comment that doesnt prove the DR has a bias. [14] is already in the article under 'Charges of bias' [15] is hardly "leap[ing] to McCain's defense". its just a posted news article. you could possibly at a long shot claim DR is criticizing the NYT. [16] again this is a blog and just has captured a shot of the DR. i have no idea where these "subliminal messages" are. [17] and if that is "the best of all", its a pretty poor attempt at proving any sort of bias. it just comparing 2 things against each other. you shouldnt bothering continuing because you are not doing a very good job here. Perry mason (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok so it seems to me what you want is a link war where we both offer conflicting articles, the end result which you know will cast doubt on the whole affair. Guess what: you can dig up conflicting articles about absolutly anything under the sun if you look hard enough. At the end of the day its up to us to be able to see through the BS for what a thing really is. I bet if you took a roll call of Fox News reports and articles, you would get a 'balanced' number, but no one would suggest the place is anything but a conservative loud speaker. Drudge does a good job floating on the edge, to make it seem like his page is neutral, but then when you least expect it you're hit with a number of rather over-the-top conservative bent articles, be they anti-Hillary or anti-climate change. It is not so much the total tally, it is the timing and tenor. The balancing act is very impressive, but it is a duplicity all the same. (I'm curious to know what you think of www.drudge.com) Either that or its just the way Drudge likes his DR, but it does not change the fact that anyone reading this page over the last 2 years will come up with the same conclusion: it's written by someone who has some obvious conservative undertones. To attend to the articles you expect, here are a host that should attend to most of what I've been saying: conservatives identifying with DR: [6] [7] interesting comments on the apperance of centralism despite well known bias: [8] Drudge leaps to McCain's defense: [9] highlights DR tactics in posting very conservative topics and then removing them before long (reminds of subliminal messages) [10] and the best of all: [11]. Need I continue? There are tons of articles that back what I say up in every way possible. 67.113.98.3 (talk)
- you are sidetracking a little but it doesnt matter if DR has control of the ad's, it still doesnt make it a conservative website per se. if we make an example of this point of yours, if i went to NYT and found an advert saying Bush is the greatest, should we should call the NYT conservative? how about if i went onto newsmax and found a pro-Obama ad, are they a democrat website? anyway forget that. you claim "Headlines include attempts to overplay the 'rifts' in the Democratic party". of course they do because number 1 - at present time its the DNC convention and number 2 - thats what the news agencies and tv media are covering so DR looks similar because he posts links to these groups. you can bet he will do exactly the same when the RNC has their meetup as well. at present time, im looking at a headline 'Hillary tells voters: Democats must unite...' from reuters [3] that is hardly an attempt "to overplay the 'rifts'" is it? the 'ANTI-OBAMA STAND RILES GAYS' headline comes from the NYP [4] and the 'A Look Back at Hillary's Year in Pantsuits' comes from ABC [5] neither of which are controlled by DR. all he is doing is linking to these sources and the DR is bascially a snapshot of the lastest news headlines and main issues of the day. you can hardly say the DR has "conservative interest articles". at the minute he has loads on the DNC convention which i imagine intrests Democrats as well. i like how you overlooked my source that claims DR is friendly toward Obama and critical towards McCain. im the only one here providing sources at the minute so i could edit the article, add that and claim DR is a Democrat website or at least supportive of Obama because i have a source to back that up. you have yet to back your claims up with any proof or evidence im afraid. Perry mason (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Hillary team reached out to Drudge in the first place because of the relentlessness of his attacks! I am willing to include a 'conservative-leaning' because as you say, there are times indeed when the DR makes an effort to a bit balanced, or at least seem like it. Those moments of balance tend to be fleeting however. As for the advertising of course they have control over what is seen in the ads. If they wanted to be balanced they could easily demand non-political ads and make as much money. Anyway, advertisers target their audience, and if conservative efforts always seem to have a reason to pay out money to advertise on DR then there is a reason for that. Lets take at the DR right at this moment, 5PM Pacific time 8/26/08. Headlines include attempts to overplay the 'rifts' in the Democratic party "Bill Clinton undercuts Obama -- again..." "Tensions boil..." "Three Clans Mix Uneasily..." Then there is the usual host of articles of conservative interest or amusement "TV: A Look Back at Hillary's Year in Pantsuits..." "PUBLISHER'S ANTI-OBAMA STAND RILES GAYS..." All that is just for today, but since the DR is a constantly evolving page it is hard sometimes to take a snapshot and say here is conclusive evidence of its conservative nature. In the morning you'll get a majority of conservative interest articles, only to have them replaced perhaps by that evening by a healthy peppering of the latest Paris Hilton foibles and an article on a 200 pound dog. Populist and conservative leaning, that's the track record. 67.113.98.3 (talk)
- ok even if we do mention any controversies in the lead, it still cannot be written how it was (calling DR a conservative website). it would have to go something like 'some critics [insert suitable references here] claim that the DR has a certain bias' etc. again, i dont really care about what side people claim the DR supports, i just wanted to see decent sources to back the claims up. however, ill play the Devil's advocate. on the hillary bashing - i could add something like [1] about Hillary's team and Drudge getting friendly. also something like [2] with quotes like "To Obama, meanwhile, Drudge has been admiring at times" and it comments on how Drudge has been critical towards McCain. also Drudge has been very critical of Bush's privacy (or lack of) policy and quite often makes Bush out to look like a fool. on the ad's - the DR uses an outside company (intermarkets) which it has no control over so thats a non-issue. Perry mason (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- As Woody points out, the first paragraph is designed to highlight the whole, and a part of the whole is mentioning of the controversies at the very least. I mean really Perry, do you ever read the Drudge Report on a regular basis? Can you honestly sit there and tell me that the constant Hillary bashing, global warming denialism, conservative ads and countless other articles doesn’t strike you as at least a little conservative? I applaud your desire to back up every last statement with a handy article that somehow is equal to scholarly verification, but there is something to be said for a does of old fashion common sense too. 67.113.98.3 (talk)
- Not commenting on either opinion here, but the WP:LEAD is meant to summarise the article; it is meant to duplicate the article. You should be able to read the lead and be able to understand the whole article. Woody (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- im afraid i dont really get your point here. if it is already in the article and referenced (which it is under Charges of bias) and you are not giving us any new media studies or other things to discuss, there is no need to repeat the information that is already there. if you showed us something new to discuss that you thought proved the Drudge Report shows some sort of possible bias and we needed to add a new section about it, that would be fine and we could discuss that easily but at the minute we are just going round in circles. as it is, the article is fine and i dont see any problem with it and you seem to want to add new content without proving any references or now you just seem to want to repeat content that is already there. i dont mean to be rude but i just really dont see the point in all this. Perry mason (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- So if we reference many of the articles already contained in the Drudge Report wiki article, and in the Matt Drudge wiki article, all of which highlight the fact that many prominent conservatives have extolled the virtues of the Drudge Report as giving them the speedy inside scoop they want, or indeed point out the biggest headlines ever reported by the Drudge Report, would it then be possible to claim in the first paragraph that the report is conservative-leaning? I can't imagine what more reference one needs, and this is what I mean when I say all the reporting one could ask for is already in the main articules associated with Drudge. Jason Parise (talk)
- that (or anything else) would be fine providing i can see some sources added here that are verifiable and suitable for inclusion. post a decent source where Matt Drudge calls the Drudge Report a 'conservative leaning populist website' and i dont see why we cannot add that. Perry mason (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Or in fact we could use the man's words, a 'conservative leaning populist website.' How does that sound Perry? Jason Parise (talk)
- I completely agree with RATEL on his compromise idea, and I think his solution is the best way to break our impasse. Jason Parise (talk)
- [outdent] If any of you wish to insert a reference to Drudge's pro-GOP or conservative leanings into the intro, simply go read all the referenced articles and I'm sure you'll find a suitable citation. ► RATEL ◄ 23:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Could we just find a source that says Drudge targets a conservative audience, or at least that perhaps he has more visits from conservatives than are typical of a mainstream news service? Obviously, the ads do target conservatives even if Drudge himself does not say that that is the intent of his site. Theshibboleth (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Provided source to Howard Kurtz, CNN Reliable Sources host that clearly categorized Drudge a conservative. Hope this ends the debate here, Mr. Perry Mason. You have reverted this page way too much, and you started swearing on the history page. Not nice. Hope you are not Drudge's "hidden helper". 24.147.84.127 (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- THANK YOU! i dont agree with it (the opinions of Kurtz are questionable) but its a decent source with discussion on the DR so its cool. i have reverted the page as anybody should have due to multiple people adding POV items and breaking such rules as No original research and Verifiability. nope im not "Drudge's "hidden helper"" whatever that may be. Perry mason (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
"Opinion Website"?
The Drudge Report, while purporting a certain viewpoint in the articles it links towards, certainly doesn't classify as an opinion website. It is a news site, and the main summary of the page should reflect this. Corduroyblack 09:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
study showing "liberal bias": a closer look
I looked at that study that it mentions seems to show a liberal bias, and in their results tables, of the 20 news sources they looked at, all but 5 had a more liberal score than the Drudge report. In fact, only two of them (Fox News and the Washington Times) indicated a conservative bias. Given that this shows that the average news source gets a more liberal score than this site mainly devoted to posting links to other news sources, in all reason the accusations of liberal bias are clearly opposite to the evidence shown by that study.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.222.180 (talk • contribs)
- Please sign your posts. This is not a page to debate whether the study is accurate or not. We are not the arbiters, and others have found it wanting. In any case, if you disregard where the links go and only look at reports Drudge himself authors, the tone is overwhelmingly pro-Republican and anti-Democrat. But I think the WP page does adequately reflect the political leanings of the Drudge Report, and you'd have to be peculiarly insensitive not to pick that up. Skopp (Talk) 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why the study is even noted on the page. Just because some think tank publishes a study does not mean that it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Yes: others have found it wanting, such as, for instance, pretty much everyone. Do we cite ridiculously flawed studies on medical issues in medical articles, let alone give them most of an entire section on bias? The study doesn't even measure anything relevant to bias in the first place. The politics of the linked sites are irrelevant: the bias is almost entirely in the selection of stories (which for anyone that's actually read the site, essentially frame issues at debate in a particular way). Just to take an example of the second, there are countless stories noting that Sarah Palin's claims about the Bridge to Nowhere are false. But none of those stories are linked. Instead the summary of Palin stories are all about how the media is going to be sorry for attacking her and are out of line for criticizing her. What news organizations are at the end of those links are nigh irrelevant. Now, if there were such methodological problems with a study in nearly any other subject, we wouldn't keep a cite, let alone a mention of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that the flawed study purportedly showing that the DR is not biased is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Go ahead and remove it; I shall not oppose.► RATEL ◄ 05:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't my point. I didn't say the study was innacurate, but that based on the studies results, it is grossly inaccurate to say it shows the Drudge report is more liberal than most media outlets. Also, how can you say this page "adequately reflect the political leanings of the Drudge Report" when no where on the page does it claim it has a conservative viewpoint? This despite the fact that the guy who runs the Drudge Report used to have a show on Fox News, that was canceled after an incident where he wanted to be too extreme in opposing abortion, and has gone on record saying that he is a conservative, and yet the only allegations of a liberal or conservative bias claim the site is liberal?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.222.180 (talk • contribs)
- There are numerous quotes and passages indicating Drudge is conservative. If you want to find another one and insert it, it's your prerogative. Skopp 12:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- No it's not our perrogative, because jokers keep reverting it to the ridiculous article at present where the main claim made about it's political leanings is that it leans left (with the recent coup of at least getting "sometimes right" to stick), with a few gadflies dissenting. The study is patently ridiculous: rating whether a news source is liberal or conservative has nothing to do with the selection of stories, how they are titled, how those titles are arranged to tell a story, and so on. Are we going to cite creationist stories on the evolution pages next? Can anyone come up with a "study" that says anything, and have it influence an entire article? If I make up with a study that shows that John McCain is actually a Democrat, can we remove all references to what party he's a member of from his bio page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Global warming section
"Drudge has faced criticism for his skeptical view of global warming, as evidenced by his frequent juxtapositioning of links to articles on global warming with links to reports of unusually cold weather.[20]".
The source cited there doesn't support that statement. It only mentions Drudge once, and it criticizes him for running lots of bad reviews of the concert. No mention at all of justapositioning links of cold and hot weather, or criticism for doing so. I'm not arguing that he doesn't do that. But are there reliable sources that point out that he does that, or criticize him for it? Just because we may observe that he does something does not mean it is not original research if we include it in the article without a proper source. - Crockspot 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Changed, relook at link, it says of the DR: "It loves winter cold snaps in Washington, D.C., and has taken to publicizing freak snowstorms in warm places." Skopp 12:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. - Crockspot 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the wording slightly in this section to highlight the fact that he does this almost on a daily basis, which seems to me to be more than just a trend but more of an obsession. Jason Parise (talk)
- The wording has been reverted. It seems more opinion that is supported by the citation. --Rtrev (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like you just don't want the fact known, and have used the lack of additional sources cited as an excuse to delete what I added. I know this, as does everyone else who reads the DR, to be a fact by experience. Shall I publish a report on the web about it, then cite it, would that be good enough for you? Jason Parise (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The wording has been reverted. It seems more opinion that is supported by the citation. --Rtrev (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I changed the wording slightly in this section to highlight the fact that he does this almost on a daily basis, which seems to me to be more than just a trend but more of an obsession. Jason Parise (talk)
- Thank you. - Crockspot 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Changed, relook at link, it says of the DR: "It loves winter cold snaps in Washington, D.C., and has taken to publicizing freak snowstorms in warm places." Skopp 12:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Media Matters line
Calling Media Matters "progressive" is a bit POV, isn't it? I mean, they're Liberal, for sure, but to call them outright progressive is an expression of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.249.133 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's all in the eye of the beholder. "Progressive" is a dictionary synonym for left-leaning or liberal, and an antonym for conservative.[18] Ratel 10:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Progressive is the new Liberal. Don't worry they'll have a new name in 5 years. 151.203.224.233 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Jax
Global warming bias
The Drudge Report seems particularly biased towards climate change. Not only are the headlines routinely misleading and misrepresentative of the actual truth of the matter (i.e., he tends to deal in obfuscation of what AGW actually implies by highlighting localized cold snaps), but at times deliberately inaccurate. Since yesterday evening, for instance, he has had a headline highlighting the recent arctic snap in the contiguous US (which really isn't all that surprising considering it's the middle of January and, in any case, nationally temperatures are still well above normal for the month). The headline purports to link to a temperature map; when you click on the link, it actually goes to a map of wind chills which are easily up to 20 degrees lower than the actual air temperature depending on wind speeds. I don't know if this is noteworthy; I know there's already a section on his global warming bias in the article. Perhaps it would be appropriate to link to the Drudge Report Archive to use this as an instance of a blatant error. Anyways, Fair and balanced a la Faux News, I suppose. It's really quite comical. Soon as Drudge links to an article on Global Warming, you can expect the comments to be filled with juvenile remarks and complaints about Al Gore. LOL. 128.237.246.217 (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Clinton Coverage
I think the Drudge Report's anti-Clinton bias is pretty well known and attested to in the media, and for anyone who reads it regularly this is plainly obvious. It is very much worth mentioning and highlighting this fact because it plays on the top headlines almost every day lately during this primary season. For every 10 anti-Clinton links or suggestive pictures there is one link on another candidate, complimentary or otherwise. DON'T erase my work unless you can back up otherwise, but good luck trying. Jason Parise (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with above user. I'm politically apathetic and don't care but there is an obvious anti-clinton or pro-obama rhetoric to the site. When the Obama dressing like a Muslim story broke out, he went out of his way to say a Clinton Staffer supported him with that story, but did not reveal the source. Additionally he went out of his way and put in an editor's note saying it wasn't a big deal because many leaders dress in other culture's wardrobes. Additionally every picture of Clinton he puts up seems to very unflattering and he headlines the page with many "Clinton Weaps" type stories. Todays lead story is Obama winning the unofficial polls of Wyoming's primary. How is that the most important story in the world right now? Wyoming is perhaps the least influential and either the least populous or second to, state in the country. I want to see Clinton leading in Guam be a headline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iosimcash (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Notable exclusives
I think it is appropriate to add a list of stories which Drudge broke first. I am going to add the Lewinsky affair along with a few others, but I think it may be slightly redundant as it is already mentioned two other times in the article, perhaps one of these other references should be removed?This.machinery (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
To the recent vandal:
Yes, yes: a lot of Brits (and others) are similarly hacked off that the Drudge Report took it upon itself to break a story that the British media - in a rare show of cooperation and common sense - had agreed to keep quiet on; namely the deployment of Prince Harry to Afghanistan. I'm sure lots of people have lots they want to say to Drudge. But let's be grown up about this: if you're not happy with the site, then send an email - don't attack Wikipedia for it. - Shrivenzale (talk) 12:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Daily Telegraph has commented on how the entry has been changed. Woody (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- So I see. "[Drudge] revelled in the controversy he provoked by breaking the news blackout on Prince Harry's deployment." No doubt he did: it's great publicity for him, and hang the potential consequences to anyone else. Still, the vandals need to appreciate (and I know they won't, so I'm just wasting keypresses) that Wikipedia is only damaged - if briefly - by what they do. It doesn't help anyone or anything. Therefore, it's an entirely self-serving activity on their part, and yet that's supposedly what their criticisms accuse The Drudge Report of. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why is changing the Wikipedia entry to state that the Drudge report is an irresponsible news site vandalism? Surely putting the life of one of Britain's royals and the lives of many of its soldiers in danger is irresponsible to the extreme? It has been reported in the press as irresponsible, and this has been agreed by the army, as such it is fact and therefore can be included in the wiki article. Where, therefore, is the vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.195.14 (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The purpose of Wikipedia in dealing with news reports is to report what happened, not to pass moral judgement on it. Opinions without proper citation therefore constitute at best inappropriate content, and at worst vandalism. Wikipedia could convey the opinion that this was irresponsible journalism if - and only if - a notable source can be cited as having said so. Even in that case, the opinion - the point of view (POV) - must be that of the source cited, not of Wikipedia itself; and it would be incumbent on editors to ensure that all points of view are covered. If you have no such a source to present here (and I'd be astonished if that were the case), then you're welcome to express your feelings on the matter on your own website or blog, or write a letter to the papers, or complain to The Drudge Report directly.
- Why is changing the Wikipedia entry to state that the Drudge report is an irresponsible news site vandalism? Surely putting the life of one of Britain's royals and the lives of many of its soldiers in danger is irresponsible to the extreme? It has been reported in the press as irresponsible, and this has been agreed by the army, as such it is fact and therefore can be included in the wiki article. Where, therefore, is the vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.195.14 (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- So I see. "[Drudge] revelled in the controversy he provoked by breaking the news blackout on Prince Harry's deployment." No doubt he did: it's great publicity for him, and hang the potential consequences to anyone else. Still, the vandals need to appreciate (and I know they won't, so I'm just wasting keypresses) that Wikipedia is only damaged - if briefly - by what they do. It doesn't help anyone or anything. Therefore, it's an entirely self-serving activity on their part, and yet that's supposedly what their criticisms accuse The Drudge Report of. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bear in mind also that my comments here followed an example of very clear vandalism: not simply an unsupported opinion, but several instances of profanity and personal abuse. This is certainly not the place for that. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Prince Harry "Exclusive"?
Why is this listed under the Notable exclusive section? This clearly was not an exclusive in any way, shape, or form! The article itself states this. I would think that it could be re-listed under "Errors", but that may be a NPOV issue on my part. Either way, I think that it needs to be changed.BWH76 (talk) 13:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The section is just meant to list a brief number of stories which Drudge was the first, or was one of very first to publish. Drudge reported on Prince Harry in a questionable manner, and I think the comments by the Ministry of Defense reflect this. However, even if Drudge affected the Prince's deployment by the superseding the blackout agreement (which he was not a part of), the initial pretext of the story- that Prince Harry was fighting in Afghanistan, is not an error.This.machinery (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unquestionably notable and for good or bad (the latter IMO in terms of PH) this has made the Drudge report notable in the UK much as Lewinsky made it notable in the US. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't questioning the notability - I was questioning why it was titled as an "exclusive". This is immaterial as someone has edited the section to read "Notable stories" (as opposed to "Notable exclusives"). BWH76 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Lack of journalistic integrity
I kind of feel that there should be a section on Drudge's lack of journalistic integrity--reporting stories before the facts are clear, injecting personal bias, not sourcing statements, etc. For instance, following Apple CEO Steve Jobs's appearance at the WWDC in 2008, Drudge linked to a Yahoo! news photo of Jobs seemingly leaning against a table for support (though the caption didn't state this). Then, the Wall Street Journal said that "blogs" were discussing Jobs's health, though the Journal only specifically mentioned Drudge. Drudge then linked to this Journal article, replacing the link to the photo. In essence it would seem he manipulated the mainstream and fabricated a story. Theshibboleth (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree but it's OR for us to say so. If someone in the media reports the facts as you have speculated above, then it may be included. ► RATEL ◄ 00:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"Conservative" website
This is linked to #"conservative website" above. I have fully protected this page as this long-term edit war is absurd. I have seen little to no discussion on this issue, yet the participants have been reverting each other for weeks. We have the three revert rule for a reason; these edit wars are very disruptive. Please discuss your edits here. Make your viewpoints known here, show your sources, explain your reasoning and come to a consensus as to how to move the article forward. Woody (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to take the liberty of attaching a Fox News style statement to the article now that we are unlocked. I think it is a fair compromise all things considered. I hope you all agree. Jason Parise (talk)
- Heh, just as a side note, don't know if any of you have been keeping an eye on the DR since the Palin news came out, but since then the DR has waxed even more strenously conservative than ever. It's pretty funny to watch people try to defend the DR as impartial when you have huge and constant headlines on how amazing she is, little to nothing on the bridge to nowhere (classic DR material), and a big fat banner to donate to McCain. Unbiased? Tough sell that! Jason Parise (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to take the liberty of attaching a Fox News style statement to the article now that we are unlocked. I think it is a fair compromise all things considered. I hope you all agree. Jason Parise (talk)
I've never talked on Wiki
So, perhaps I am out of line here.
However, the guidelines state: Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming
Article policies
No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
It seems to me that it is unnecessary and undesirable to attach what is essentially an opinion. Per se, the definition of conservative is relative - hence neither scholarly nor neutral.
It seems redundant and counterproductive to label every news source with a label of liberal, conservative, progressive or populist. It is my impression that wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia of fact.
It seems to me that the label of 'conservative' has been applied to as a derogative term, to lessen the credentials of the subject matter.
In conclusion, I would say that the 'conservative' violates the guidelines in the areas of 'neutral point of view', verifiably, and perhaps in good faith. Ie., I believe that an agenda is being pushed at odds with the intent of wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.0.134 (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree, I think it is entirely possible to call something liberal and conservative when the nature of the content is overtly so. No one would say CNN is liberal or conservative, however everyone who is rational sees that Fox News is conservative. In fact in the first paragraph for Fox News right here in this wiki states that "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting." So why is it 'ethical' for this news source and not for the Drudge Report who's conservative bias is well established? On the contrary I think people on the extremes on both sides of the American political spectrum like to make it seem like their views are mainstream and thus contribute to moving the country's political spectrum and belief, and by muddling the nature of Drudge Report this is in effect what happens. Jason Parise (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with what you say but there are some who like pushing certain labels "to lessen the credentials of the subject matter." if you look above, i tried debating that but to no success. i added sources to make points. the people who call the DR a conservative website did not add any valid sources or studies to back up what they have said but they get control regardless. you just have to accept the bias of the editors and move on. to Jason Parise, actually thinking about it, many people says CNN has a liberal bias so why does that not have the same 'warning' as the FNC page, strange that ;-) oh and it hasnt been "well established" that DR has a "conservative bias" but obviously i may as well let that slide. Perry mason (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)